Wednesday, February 25, 2015

We previously published a review of the 2010 NCAA Tournament
in mid-October 2014, which can be found to the right on the toolbar of past
posts; today let’s take a detailed look at the 2014 NCAA Tournament.

What is the College Basketball SBPI?It’s a comprehensive system for college
basketball teams that grades performance in 10 offensive & defensive
categories, adjusts those raw figures for SOS, then slots teams into their
proper power ratings.Each week we have
posted an updated SBPI for the 2015 season – check toolbar to the right to
reference.

Let’s take a look at the 2014 NCAA Tournament using the SBPI
ranks & power ratings for those seasons, comparing those “lines” to what
Vegas closed at, and grading our plays.We have graded every play that had a 0.6 point or greater variance
between our line & Vegas closing # - and you will see how solid the results
are.Why show the results of an NCAA
Tournament?Well it removes many of the
other variables we use when handicapping during the regular season – each team
needs a win to advance so we can generally expect a team to give its best
effort – it does not always translate to such, but it’s the situation that
removes the most other variables we utilize during the regular season.

Legend:

SBPI Rank: where
each team’s power rating slotted them that specific season

SBPI Rating: true
strength of a team.The difference
between teams SBPI Rating is the spread we project for a matchup between the
two schools

SBPI Pick:
identifies the side the SBPI directs us to playing based on comparing SBPI Line
vs. Vegas Line

Here is the Midwest Region:

SBPI

SBPI

Vegas

SBPI

Rank

Rating

Seed

Line

Line

Pick

Grade

32

84.5

WICHITA
STATE

1

-9.3

-17

CAL POLY

LOSS

114

75.2

CAL
POLY

16

8

90.4

KENTUCKY

8

-7.4

-6

KENTUCKY

WIN

40

83

KANSAS
STATE

9

34

84.2

SAINT
LOUIS

5

-4.8

-3

SAINT LOUIS

-

75

79.4

NC
STATE

12

4

92.8

LOUISVILLE

4

-14.7

-16

MANHATTAN

WIN

85

78.1

MANHATTAN

13

37

83.4

MASSACHUSETTS

6

3

93.2

TENNESSEE

11

-9.8

-6

TENNESSEE

WIN

6

91.4

DUKE

3

-17.5

-13

DUKE

LOSS

135

73.9

MERCER

14

39

83

TEXAS

7

-0.6

-2.5

ARIZONA STATE

WIN

47

82.4

ARIZONA
STATE

10

16

88.7

MICHIGAN

2

-17.8

-15

MICHIGAN

WIN

190

70.9

WOFFORD

15

32

84.5

WICHITA
STATE

1

-4.5

KENTUCKY

WIN

8

90.4

KENTUCKY

8

-5.9

34

84.2

SAINT
LOUIS

5

4

92.8

LOUISVILLE

4

-8.6

-10

SAINT LOUIS

LOSS

3

93.2

TENNESSEE

11

-19.3

-8.5

TENNESSEE

WIN

135

73.9

MERCER

14

39

83

TEXAS

7

16

88.7

MICHIGAN

2

-5.7

-5

MICHIGAN

WIN

8

90.4

KENTUCKY

8

4

92.8

LOUISVILLE

4

-2.4

-4.5

KENTUCKY

WIN

3

93.2

TENNESSEE

11

-4.5

16

88.7

MICHIGAN

2

-2.5

TENNESSEE

WIN

8

90.4

KENTUCKY

8

-1.7

-2

-

-

16

88.7

MICHIGAN

2

Next up is the West Region, winner of which would play Midwest
Region winner Kentucky in the Final Four:

SBPI

SBPI

Vegas

SBPI

Rank

Rating

Seed

Line

Line

Pick

Grade

2

94

ARIZONA

1

-25.4

-20

ARIZONA

LOSS

243

68.6

WEBER
STATE

16

51

82

GONZAGA

8

30

84.9

OKLAHOMA
STATE

9

-2.9

-4

GONZAGA

WIN

26

85.3

OKLAHOMA

5

-7.1

-3.5

OKLAHOMA

LOSS

84

78.2

N.
DAKOTA STATE

12

12

89.9

SAN
DIEGO STATE

4

-17.2

-8

SD STATE

LOSS

160

72.7

NEW
MEX STATE

13

13

89.6

BAYLOR

6

-7.9

-3.5

BAYLOR

WIN

52

81.7

NEBRASKA

11

44

82.8

CREIGHTON

3

-5.9

-13.5

UL LAFAYETTE

WIN

101

76.9

UL
LAFAYETTE

14

31

84.6

OREGON

7

-3

-5

BYU

LOSS

56

81.6

BYU

10

5

92

WISCONSIN

2

-22.4

-14

WISCONSIN

WIN

219

69.6

AMERICAN

15

2

94

ARIZONA

1

-12

-7.5

ARIZONA

WIN

51

82

GONZAGA

8

84

78.2

N.
DAKOTA STATE

12

12

89.9

SAN
DIEGO STATE

4

-11.7

-4

SD STATE

WIN

13

89.6

BAYLOR

6

-6.8

44

82.8

CREIGHTON

3

-3.5

BAYLOR

WIN

31

84.6

OREGON

7

5

92

WISCONSIN

2

-7.4

-6

WISCONSIN

WIN

2

94

ARIZONA

1

-4.1

-7.5

SAN DIEGO STATE

WIN

12

89.9

SAN
DIEGO STATE

4

13

89.6

BAYLOR

6

5

92

WISCONSIN

2

-2.4

-4

BAYLOR

LOSS

2

94

ARIZONA

1

-2

-3.5

WISCONSIN

WIN

5

92

WISCONSIN

2

On to the other side of the Field of 64 – first up let’s
look at the East:

SBPI

SBPI

Vegas

SBPI

Rank

Rating

Seed

Line

Line

Pick

Grade

11

90.1

VIRGINIA

1

-23.1

-19.5

VIRGINIA

LOSS

265

67

COAST
CAROLINA

16

25

85.3

MEMPHIS

8

-2.4

-4

G. WASHINGTON

LOSS

42

82.9

G.
WASHINGTON

9

18

88.3

CINCINNATI

5

-6.6

-3

CINCINNATI

LOSS

54

81.7

HARVARD

12

17

88.5

MICHIGAN
STATE

4

-15.3

-15

-

-

151

73.2

DELAWARE

13

22

86.4

NORTH
CAROLINA

6

-1.5

-4.5

PROVIDENCE

WIN

29

84.9

PROVIDENCE

11

24

86.1

IOWA
STATE

3

-16.9

-8.5

IOWA STATE

WIN

224

69.2

NC
CENTRAL

14

23

86.2

CONNECTICUT

7

-4.7

-5

-

-

58

81.5

SAINT
JOSEPHS

10

9

90.4

VILLANOVA

2

-18.4

-16.5

VILLANOVA

WIN

171

72.0

MILWAUKEE

15

11

90.1

VIRGINIA

1

-4.8

-7

MEMPHIS

LOSS

25

85.3

MEMPHIS

8

54

81.7

HARVARD

12

17

88.5

MICHIGAN
STATE

4

-6.8

-8.5

HARVARD

WIN

22

86.4

NORTH
CAROLINA

6

-0.3

24

86.1

IOWA
STATE

3

-1.5

NORTH CAROLINA

LOSS

23

86.2

CONNECTICUT

7

9

90.4

VILLANOVA

2

-4.2

-4

-

-

11

90.1

VIRGINIA

1

-1.6

17

88.5

MICHIGAN
STATE

4

-2.5

VIRGINIA

WIN

24

86.4

IOWA
STATE

3

-0.2

-1

CONNECTICUT

WIN

23

86.2

CONNECTICUT

7

17

88.5

MICHIGAN
STATE

4

-2.3

-5.5

CONNECTICUT

WIN

23

86.2

CONNECTICUT

7

Finally, here is the South, winner of which would play East
Region winner Connecticut in the Final Four:

SBPI

SBPI

Vegas

SBPI

Rank

Rating

Seed

Line

Line

Pick

Grade

1

96.5

FLORIDA

1

-27.8

-22

FLORIDA

LOSS

239

68.7

ALBANY

16

38

83

COLORADO

8

10

90.3

PITTSBURGH

9

-7.3

-6

PITTSBURGH

WIN

14

89.5

VCU

5

-15.6

-6

VCU

LOSS

137

73.9

SF AUSTIN

12

21

86.5

UCLA

4

-8.9

-8

UCLA

WIN

90

77.6

TULSA

13

7

90.8

OHIO
STATE

6

-6.6

-6.5

-

-

33

84.2

DAYTON

11

15

88.7

SYRACUSE

3

-19.8

-13

SYRACUSE

WIN

233

68.9

W.
MICHIGAN

14

62

81.2

NEW
MEXICO

7

-4.5

STANFORD

WIN

35

84.1

STANFORD

10

-2.9

19

87.6

KANSAS

2

-14.7

-13

KANSAS

LOSS

157

72.9

E. KENTUCKY

15

1

96.5

FLORIDA

1

-6.2

-5.5

FLORIDA

WIN

10

90.3

PITTSBURGH

9

137

73.9

SF AUSTIN

12

21

86.5

UCLA

4

-12.6

-9.5

UCLA

WIN

33

84.2

DAYTON

11

15

88.7

SYRACUSE

3

-4.5

-8.5

DAYTON

WIN

35

84.1

STANFORD

10

19

87.6

KANSAS

2

-3.5

-6.5

STANFORD

WIN

1

96.5

FLORIDA

1

-10

-4.5

FLORIDA

WIN

21

86.5

UCLA

4

33

84.2

DAYTON

11

-0.1

35

84.1

STANFORD

10

-3.5

DAYTON

WIN

1

96.5

FLORIDA

1

-12.3

-10.5

FLORIDA

LOSS

33

84.2

DAYTON

11

Lastly, here is how the Final Four bracket worked out:

SBPI

SBPI

Vegas

SBPI

Rank

Rating

Seed

Line

Line

Pick

Grade

23

86.2

CONNECTICUT

7

1

96.5

FLORIDA

1

-10.3

-7

FLORIDA

LOSS

8

90.4

KENTUCKY

8

-1

WISCONSIN

-

5

92

WISCONSIN

2

-1.6

23

86.2

CONNECTICUT

7

8

90.4

KENTUCKY

8

-4.2

-2.5

KENTUCKY

LOSS

Here were the ATS records per the SBPI plays laid out above:

RECORDS

1ST

16-12-4

57.1%

2ND

12-3-1

80.0%

S16

7-1-0

87.5%

E8

2-1-1

66.7%

F4

0-1-1

0.0%

TITLE

0-1-0

0.0%

TOTAL

37-19-7

66.1%

In addition to cashing 66.1% of the 63 NCAA Tournament games
that season the SBPI posted a 4-1 ATS mark when it had one team favored while
Vegas was on other side (the loss was a close one when Iowa State beat North
Carolina narrowly)!Note also of the 12
losses in the Round of 64 FOUR came when playing strictly a “line” in the 1 vs.
16 seed games.The SBPI posted an 21-7
mark in the Round of 32 & deeper rounds showing it is extremely accurate
when slotting how “strong” these teams truly are, especially when we get to the
“cream of the crop” teams that advance deep versus playing “lines” in the
earlier rounds.

All the NCAA Tournaments we have tested dating back to the
2010 version have a similar ATS winning percentage (above 60%)!

Thanks for reading, if you have any questions please feel
free to reach out.

The SportsBoss is a handicapping "broker" that offers NFL, NBA, NCAA football, NCAA basketball, NHL and MLB picks. The Sports Boss leverages his background which includes both a BS and MBA in Finance to build robust, analytical models which aid in predicting outcomes of games in every sport.